Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[LPC]

You know, you can go crazy trying to track down and refute that kind of crap.

The reference appears to be to United States of America v. Lynda Wall, No. 2:04-cv-05352-DDP-MAN in the Central District of California.

It had nothing to do with any notice of levy. The United States brought an action to enforce a summons. As far as I can tell, almost every pleading by Lynda Wall was either ignored or rejected, and the court entered an enforcement order against her, and then a contempt order, and then an arrest warrant.

And then, on 9/28/2005, two days after a status report by the US, the entire case was suddenly dismissed without prejudice. No record of a motion by the United States, and no reasons given for the dismissal.

Make of it what you will.

[Famspear]

....Nice win over the IRS... She [Lynda Wall, not Linda Wall] beat them by showing they created false securities using laws and codes that only apply to BATF Activities, CFR 70....

No, sorry. It never happened. There! I just disproved it.

As Dan noted, there is really no need to waste time trying to "disprove" delusional fantasy stories on the internet -- from Wackadoosters who offer no evidence of their claims.

EDIT: I believe both Dan and Demosthenes have previously commented on Lynda Wall, but I don't have any detail, other than the court docket.

[Paths of the Sea]

EDIT: I believe both Dan and Demosthenes have previously commented on Lynda Wall, but I don't have any detail, other than the court docket.

I have since run across a posting from Dan in another venue which is similar to his comments above.

Thanks for revisiting the issue Dan & Famspear!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[wserra]

The most likely explanation for the dismissal is that, once she was held in contempt and a warrant was issued for her arrest, Wall complied with the summons.

[The Observer]

The most likely explanation for the dismissal is that, once she was held in contempt and a warrant was issued for her arrest, Wall complied with the summons.

Or she was able to show that she did not have the information that the IRS was asking for, the IRS agreed and they decided to withdraw their request for enforcement for the summons.

But either way, none of that proves that somehow Wall "beat" the IRS by getting a court ruling in her favor.

[Samphire]

Robert,

From your last posting on your Facebook page:

My opinion is that Kent Hovind simply is not up do doing what he boasts of; taking the stand in his own defense, submitting to cross examination, and demonstrating his commitment to full disclosure, openness, and honestly.

I think that in this case Kent will be happy to take the stand. His problem won't be in failing to give evidence but in being too loquacious and restricted by the court to stay on subject. He will not be permitted to put on a belated defence of his first trial but I think that he has an arguable basis for defending the present indictment by claiming that all he was trying to achieve was to put potential purchasers on notice that the litigation on the property forfeiture (as far as he was concerned) was not at an end. However, I doubt that such defence will have any chance of excusing his breach of the injunction.

One attack on his veracity might be in relation to his current claim that he does not know the identity of the person who physically served the lis pendens, either by mail or otherwise. He seems to admit that he was instrumental in having the notices served at all so I find this claimed ignorance rather disingenuous.

A question I have is what happens now that Hansen has a full time counsel? Is the attorney duty bound to serve whatever motions his client requires however crazy they might be or does he retain a right of veto? After all, he will be the mutt who has to try to argue the unarguable before the court.

[Famspear]

....A question I have is what happens now that Hansen has a full time counsel? Is the attorney duty bound to serve whatever motions his client requires however crazy they might be or does he retain a right of veto.....

I think that the short answer is that neither Hansen -- nor his attorney -- has the legal right to make frivolous arguments in court. To the extent that any of Hansen's motions will contain frivolous arguments, the attorney could not file such motions on Hansen's behalf without risking being penalized himself.

[Famspear]

In a federal criminal trial, the defendant's lawyer:

....has no duty to make a frivolous argument. "Effective advocacy does not require the appellant attorney to raise every non-frivolous issue under the sun . . ." Mason v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 1996).

--from Memorandum and Order, Sept. 26, 2013, Russell v. United States, no. 12-1016-DRH, United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois, at:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... 0000000004

[Samphire]

Thanks for that, Famspear.

Doubtless, Hansen will seek to sack his attorney during the trial when he finds that the lawyer refuses to represent him in the way he wishes.

[Dr. Caligari]

Doubtless, Hansen will seek to sack his attorney during the trial when he finds that the lawyer refuses to represent him in the way he wishes.

I think Hansen, the lawyer and the judge already had that chat at this week's hearing.

[LPC]

The most likely explanation for the dismissal is that, once she was held in contempt and a warrant was issued for her arrest, Wall complied with the summons.

Or she was able to show that she did not have the information that the IRS was asking for, the IRS agreed and they decided to withdraw their request for enforcement for the summons.

But either way, none of that proves that somehow Wall "beat" the IRS by getting a court ruling in her favor.

Especially when the court was rejecting, and refusing allow her to even file, almost every document she tried to file.

[notorial dissent]

Doubtless, Hansen will seek to sack his attorney during the trial when he finds that the lawyer refuses to represent him in the way he wishes.

I think Hansen, the lawyer and the judge already had that chat at this week's hearing.

I'm pretty sure they did, and I'm pretty sure that was an interesting hearing, but the question remains as to how long Hansen will abide by it before trying to go off the rails again.

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind & Paul John Hansen

January 28, 2015 Status Hearing Scheduled

Filed January 16, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:14cr91/MCR

KENT E. HOVIND and
PAUL JOHN HANSEN

HEARING NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has
been set for the place, date, and time set forth below:

Place:
United States Courthouse
One North Palafox Street
Pensacola, Florida 32502-5658

Room No: Courtroom 5
Date: January 28, 2015
Time: 9:00 AM

Type of Proceeding: Status Conference Hearing before the

Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, Chief Judge

January 16, 2015

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,
CLERK OF COURT
s/ Susan Simms

Copies to:
Honorable M. Casey Rodgers
Tiffany Eggers, AUSA
Thomas Keith, AFPD
Christopher Klotz, Esquire
US Marshal
Court Security

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind & Jerry Rose talk about Kent's legal problems today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGb-lFj__do

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[.]

Hovind talks about his legal problems today?

As he does every day. Too bad he's not qualified to do so. Not that that will stop him from boring the crap out of everyone. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

[notorial dissent]

Something that came to mind as I read the above comment. Hovind has spent the last however many years in what can only be called deep denial and self delusion about what has happened and what has happened to him. My question, is has he gone so far down the rabbit hole that he believes all the fantasies he spins for himself and his chorus, or is that too just one more cynical and self serving act by a lying liar?

It would seem in his fantasy world that he wants to be the persecuted religious fighting the good fight, etc , etc, etc, and this is certainly the image he wants to project to his followers. I have to admit, at least for me, that it all comes off as hollow and false as his aspirations at sovcitery and everything else. I have a hard time giving someone the benefit of the doubt when their every word comes off sounding false and hollow to my ear, and was wondering anyone else had this perception?

[Paths of the Sea]

My question, is has he gone so far down the rabbit hole that he believes all the fantasies he spins for himself and his chorus, or is that too just one more cynical and self serving act by a lying liar?

It would seem in his fantasy world that he wants to be the persecuted religious fighting the good fight, etc , etc, etc, and this is certainly the image he wants to project to his followers.

Great minds, they say!

It just so happens that I posited a similar inquiry in another venue, questioning whether or not Kent is delusional or a flat out liar with advanced stage NPD with a goal of becoming a martyr for the sovereign citizen movement.

I also suggested that if his people are really all that concerned they should concentrate on getting Kent Hovind to accept personal responsibility for sending Jo Hovind to prison and saddling her with millions in personal income tax liaibilites.

No one should express any serious concern for Kent's circumstances until he accepts and properly deals with his responsibilities in sending his wife to prison and all of that.

Kent is getting what he bargained for. It needn't have been what it is, but he asked for it and the feds have obliged. Kent pledges to keep it up for the rest of his life. OK, if that is the way he wants to work it. I recommend a different course of conduct for Kent, but he refuses to repent and bring forth his works meet for such repentance.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Hmm, my mother always said I was a cynic, and I learned a long time ago that my mother was generally right, and not that I disagreed with her mind you, but it is really hard to be anything else when someone goes around with a sign over his head saying lying liar in flashing neon colors. Just real hard. I don't think he is really trying for sovcit notoriety though, since, let's face facts here, that would only make him one more very small insignificant fish in a very big shallow pond. If he sticks with the martyred religious, then he is the outlier, or chief liar in this case, and a big important figure in what is actually a very small puddle. He wants the adulation, the notoriety, the prominence, the me, me, me, and that is something he won't get if he goes and plays with the sovcits, flirty though he seems to have been over the years. I equally think he would flirt with anything that he saw as a possible means to his ends.

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind's terrorist-like call to arms against the federal agents!

Kent and his people tell a whole 'nother story about what that was all about, even though Kent should have had the texts available to publish for years and did not do so.

Here are some excerpts about that aspect of the case which I have now gleaned from the available criminal trial transcript. Remember, however, the threat issue was only one of many issues bearing on the obstruction charge of which Kent was convicted.

(Begin excerpts examining Scott Schneider.)

Queston:

Was there something about that tape recording that made you react with regard to your safety?

Answer:

Yes, ma'am.

Queston:

Tell us generally -- we're going to listen to the tape, but tell us generally what it was that made you concerned?

Answer:

Well, during the entire tape, there is quite a bit of talk about a governmental conspiracy or the fact that the government is oppressive.

And talked about the search warrant.

Well, during that, Kent Hovind alluded to the fact that he knows how God deals with people such as us, and if he can't change our mind or our hearts, then he could deal with us as harsh as he wants to, in general is what he says.

And then he related to a story in the Bible that talks about some people being killed for not doing right.

So we took that to be sort of a veiled threat, and that he would be fine if somebody did the same thing to us, and it would be God's will.

Queston:

Special Agent Schneider, I believe you were testifying regarding the action that you took after hearing this tape recording or this Truth Radio broadcast.

Answer:

As I recall, it was discussed with our supervisor over at our agency, and a phone call was placed to the supervisor in Jacksonville over the Treasury Inspector General's Office for Tax Administration.

Those are -- what used to be our internal affairs people.

They investigate any threats against employees or employee misconduct. And so a phone call was made to them just to make them aware.

I mean, we knew that they were upset after the thing.

We took our own -- we took it seriously in terms of, you know, making sure we were aware of our own personal safety activities, make sure we were aware of our surroundings.

But other than that, it was reported, and we just sort of let it go at that -- at that time.

Question:

Before this particular radio broadcast or Internet broadcast, were you generally aware of some sort of threat based upon the information that you already had?

Answer:

I believe that -- I was made aware that there was other radio broadcasts where similar type language was being used, where agents' names were being put out over the air and where the same sort of general thing, that he was praying that things would change, and that we would not be able to interfere.

We would have to stop what we were doing.

(End excerpts.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Rudy Davis/LoneStar1776 transmits Kent Hovind's challenge to Peter J. Reilly to broadcast the unedited interview!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COKFwgfuEHE

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!